Headlines

John Avlon

Why Tim Scott should replace Jim DeMint

But we ultimately all have a national interest in depolarizing our politics along racial lines, especially in an era where Republican candidates rarely get more than 10 percent of the African-American vote. Yes, this is a rational result of what was once the Party of Lincoln embracing the states of the Confederacy beginning with Barry Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Scott’s appointment won’t erase that shameful legacy from that cynical switch—despite many conservatives’ self-serving hopes—but it will help heal the racial divides beneath partisan politics by challenging stereotypes.

In terms of policy, as a centrist independent, I might prefer former attorney general Henry McMaster or former governor Mark Sanford in the Senate, at least in terms of the way they would vote. Scott has not tried to distinguish himself as a policy leader in Congress and he has been relatively shy of the media spotlight, especially compared to his fellow African-American Tea Party Republican Allen West.

But he would be an immediately valuable addition to the Senate and national political debate—whether you agree with his political views or not.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

That’s what Avlon gets paid to do — that, and talk about how the GOP needs more socialists “moderates” and more socialism “moderation”.

Being a paid Pet Republican is good money for someone like Avlon.

Meanwhile, Tim Scott will be called every name in the book; shamed for being a black Republican; applauded by the GOP for being black and Republican; dismissed by the media as a “cynical play by the GOP for minority votes”; and will ultimately disappoint conservatives when he comes out to support Cory Booker’s presidential candidacy in the near future.

So we have to prove we’re not racists by picking a guy simply based on the color of his skin. Got it!

SouthernGent on December 9, 2012 at 11:33 AM

It wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t so freaking overt. What a disservice to Tim Scott. The man has demonstrated diligence and efficacy in his quest to ascend the political-ladder. Why can’t he just have that without making it about race.

IN SC politics is a bloodsport. The man deserves his spoils regardless of his skin’s tone.

Yes, this is a rational result of what was once the Party of Lincoln embracing the states of the Confederacy beginning with Barry Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Um, John, It was the racist Democrats that embraced the GOP, not the other way around and by racist Democrats, I mean the ones that were too stupid to realize that government dependence is the ultimate form of oppression. Also, Goldwater’s opposition was to a very small part of the legislation that he felt gave the federal government too much power.

Republican’s have the historical high ground on issues of race…until recently. But recent memories are important.

Ignoring the right’s ahem racial-challenges of late is disingenuous. How can you cite decades-old history without acknowledging Birtherism and people like Jonah Goldberg actually calling for more racism?

All this race stuff aside, I don’t know a whole lot about Scott, but what little I do know I like. I also liked his candidate forum during the presidential primary. His and Huckabee’s forums were much more constructive than those thousands of LSM debates were, although I’m not a Huck fan.

Ignoring the right’s ahem racial-challenges of late is disingenuous. How can you cite decades-old history without acknowledging Birtherism and people like Jonah Goldberg actually calling for more racism?

PHONY. That’s how you sound.

Capitalist Hog on December 9, 2012 at 12:03 PM

First, I cited it because the author cited it.

Second, since when is birtherism racism? If he was white and I suspected he was foreign-born, I would have the same questions.

Third, birtherism is practiced by a bunch of kooks, like trutherism. To indict the entire group over the actions of a few is unfair.

Fourth, since you apparently have no idea what real racism is or looks like, I would be amused to see what you think Goldberg said that was calling for more racism.